Sunday, April 28, 2013

The New York Legislature had narrowly passed a bill that sanctioned same sex marriage. The Republican candidates were quickly taking issue. One argument took center stage. Pennsylvania Senator, Rick Santorum and Texas Governor Rick Perry disagreed on an important aspect of the debate.

Santorum, a point rider for "rights of the unborn," readily asserted, "the measure passed by New York was indeed wrong, misguided and should be disallowed." It wasn't that Senator Santorum abhorred gay people. He actually showed a compassionate face in the debates some months later. However, in the case of legalizing same sex marriage, it was his unyielding position that the federal government needed to step in and kill the notion in post haste!

Rick Perry made it clear that he favored a "sanctity of marriage amendment" to the constitution. But, he ruefully acknowledged New York's right to pass such legislation. Perry "opposed" same sex marriage on "moral grounds." But, constitutionally, it would be inconsistent to implement prohibitive action from Washington D.C.

This is pure 10th amendment. And, amazingly, the 10th amendment interpretation has stymied a large number of social conservatives from full participation in regaining their country. How could this be? Is not social conservatism synonymous with strict constructionism?

I recall having a "break room" discussion with a devout social conservative in Lexington, Kentucky. This gentleman was a family man, pillar of his church, epitomizing clean living, God fearing, flag waiving America. Yet, when I suggested that decisions such as abortion, gay marriage, marijuana legalization and education be deferred to the states, he lambasted the position as "relativism."

Relativism? What is the actual definition of Relativism? Perhaps in this man's estimation, it was as follows:

"The philosophical position that all points of view are equally valid and all truths are relative to the individual."

In other words, "points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration."

In essence, "any theory holding that criteria of judgment are relative, varying with individuals and their environments."

The position held by this good man was notable. The question became, "how and why" had he taken such a stance? And where, did that point of view originate?

When we thoroughly dissect the 10th amendment, it becomes clear that the founders never intended for the federal government to get involved with abortion, gay marriage, marijuana legalization and education. So, assume for a moment that it's authors concluded that these concerns were to be handled at the state level.

This gentleman would evidently not have agreed with Jefferson, Franklin, Adams or any of the founding fathers. Based on his assertion, these issues would need to be administered from one central point. To allow states to hold different standards would be "relativism."

In reality, this well intentioned man held nothing short of a "Neo-Con" position! As referenced in a previous post, there is growing evidence that "Neo-Cons" are actually "evolved Trotskyites."

Are we suggesting that Social Conservatives are more in step with Trotsky than Jefferson? There are a lot of exceptions and variations. But, unfortunately, yes! But that could quickly change! It comes down to their "identifying the wolves in sheeps clothing!"

When taking these responsibilities away from the states, placing it with the federal government, you are conceding that "Washington knows best." The "Neo-Con(New Conservative) approach calls for a "large Washington, D.C. based government to advance, implement and facilitate conservative practices and principles." The question becomes, "does Washington also define conservatism?"

In past times, churches were more pro-active. Issues such as pro-life, prayer in the public schools, and creationism were not discussed. Any position other than uncompromising support was inconsistent with Judeo-Christian principles. Alternative positions were rarely tolerated. The Scopes Monkey trial of 1925 tested evolution and the question of whether it was sacrilege to teach it in the public schools. How things have changed!

During the 20th century it became politically incorrect to discuss religious beliefs publicly, certainly in the public schools! The term "separation of church and state" was inverted. As history confirms, the original idea was to keep government from establishing a state religion.

The founders remembered the "Church of England." They wanted no counterpart in America! The Marxists were quick to conclude that "separation of church and state" translated to "keeping religion out of any and all activities done under the auspices of government." Including the public schools. The got away with it only because Neo-Cons had infiltrated the churches to a large degree and largely seconded their motion.

Marxism never embraced religion of any kind. True, there were varying extremes of the how to deal with it. For Trotsky, it amounted to a security blanket for the masses in route to their ultimately accepting Communism as the better alternative.

History notes that Leon Trotsky was not Joseph Stalin. Nor was he Vladimir Lenin. Lenin, as we recall described religion as the "opiate of the people." He had not always held this position. Stalin was engaged in studies to become a priest in the Eastern Orthodox church before turning to atheism. Trotsky, of Jewish heritage held a softer position on religion. He saw it more as an "appeaser" or "conciliator" of the masses.

Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky were in agreement that everything, including religion was best handled from a central point. American lawmakers on both sides of the aisle supported this position. With the help of the court system, prayer was banned from the public schools. Abortion was legalized. In the 1970's a Department of Education that welded enormous power was implemented.

It is not to say that Neo-Cons didn't support school prayer, the rights of the unborn and a constitutional amendment defining marriage. Most do, up to a point. But the thought of allowing states to decide for themselves opens a can of worms! It is a certainty that many, if not most social conservatives have bought in to their argument that "it's a national argument and should be handled at the national level."

The end result: "Neo-Cons" have been able to placate and ultimately win over the social conservatives by taking strong positions on abortion, marriage, and drug control enforcement. In exchange for these concessions, Social Conservatives have basically "okayed" big government and greater control from Washington, D.C. In doing so, they have unknowingly accepted the belief that the positions of our founding fathers were nothing short of relativism.

Nothing could be further from the truth! We are "the United States of America." We are not, "the United American States." Our motto tells it all: E Pluribus Unum: "From the many, one."

When our founders wrote our Constitution they were determined to get it right! Week after week, in stifling July heat and humidity they made correction after correction, abridgment after abridgement in hammering out a workable agreement. In doing so they covered every conceivable angle. They knew that each state was different in it's own sense. All would require a certain degree of flexibility and autonomy. On the big things, they would come together.

The original inspiration exhibited by our founders was sadly polluted in the previous century. As Marxism grew, it became more accepted. Even though it has failed in every attempt, excuses for failure were always there. On going attempts to invoke this failed idea quickly sprouted in new places, including within our shores. It flourished in America because most Americans didn't recognize it. This too, was by design!

When the average 1960's American family thought Communism, they thought the U.S.S.R., Stalin, Kruschev, Brezhnev and a totalitarian state that terrorized it's population. There are countless Russians who will tell you today that it wasn't like that. But, what was it like? Three words provide the answer: "Big Central Government."

Did the Soviet Union collapse due to the population throwing off the yoke of totalitarianism? Actually not. The system failed because the country was an economic basket case! It rewarded idleness and mediocrity. It penalized productivity. Today Russian President, Vladimir Putin has gone on record to warn President Barack Obama to not fall for the same failed reasoning!

Those evolved Trotskyites made certain that their product was presented in a benign manner, appearing to be the polar opposite of it's Soviet cousin of the sixties. The people, expected to be the most ideologically opposed to a Marxist system were the Social Conservatives. Winning them amounted to winning the entire game.

There may be some good news for Constitutionalists. A lot of independents and even some Democrats may be more inclined to favor Federalism. The 10th amendment offers insight into fixing much of what ails America. If Social Conservatives can accept the 10th amendment as the "true brother of Liberty," they will be able to escape the bonds of Marxism, so expertly glamorized by Democrats and okayed by Neo-Cons.

Are we suggesting that Senator Santorum is a Neo-Con?

Senator Santorum's unique place is another discussion for a different post. But we might mention that many of his positions mirror those of John F. Kennedy. His reverence for home, church and job at the factory had the smell of protectionism. As a result, the Neo-Cons wanted no part of him.

Rick Perry epitomizes the traditional Southern position of "States rights." His talk of downsizing the Federal government, making Washington "inconsequential in the lives of Americans," scared Neo-Cons.

Perry is an avowed 10th amendment guy. In short, any act, action, duty or responsibility the 10th didn't designate as a federal responsibility, belongs the the states. Period! Santorum believes in making American industry competitive here at home. If eliminating the corporate income tax isn't enough, there are always other options available.

Both positions are grave threats to Globalism, Neo-Conservatism and, of course, World Communism. Supporters will continue to fear the inevitable. If Social Conservatives such as Senator Santorum ever accept the 10th amendment as the starting point, the circle will be complete.

Sunday, April 14, 2013

A simplified conclusion would be Republican "R.I.N.O.S," also known as, "Republicans in Name Only," are the "Neo-Cons." Unfortunately, it is much more complicated than that!

In the March 24th post on Eagles for America, we linked "Neo-Con's"(New Conservatives) to Leon Trotsky, labeling them as "evolved Trotskyites." When we assert that certain Republican and ex-Republican "R.I.N.O.S" are actually "evolved Trotskyites," there is little argument.

All party members admit to a lingering bitterness held toward the late Arlen Specter. As we recall, the longtime Republican Senator from Pennsylvania switched parties was instrumental in getting Obamacare through the Senate. Florida Republicans remain tiffed with Charlie Crist's about face. To call either a "Neo-Con" is a mild accusation. Suggesting that both were "evolved Trotskyites" would likely spawn an affirmative response.

The same might hold true if aimed at Delaware's Mike Castle. Or Maine's Olympia Snowe. We could add former Rhode Island Senator, Lincoln Chaffee and ex-Connecticut Senator, Lowell Weicker to the list. Even to label Weicker's replacement, Joe Lieberman a "Neo-Con" would draw little opposition from Republican camps!

But wait! Are not these figures mostly liberal Republican types from the Northeast? The "Neo-Cons" are not confined to that region. So what actually contrasts a "Neo-Con" from a "R.I.N.O.?" And, for that matter, what differentiates "Neo-Cons" from "Constitutionalists?"

The former is fairly simple. A "R.I.N.O." is a Republican party member who holds more moderate, if not liberal positions on various issues. Nelson Rockefeller would be referred to as a "R.I.N.O." if he were living today. His brother, Winthrop was considered more liberal than Democrat, Dale Bumpers when the two squared off in the Arkansas Governor's race in the early seventies. In retrospect, that proved to be a misnomer.

Kentucky Senator, Rand Paul insightfully drew the distinction of "Constitionalist" and "Neo-Con" in his book, The Tea Party Goes to Washington. According to Paul, a "Neo Con" believes in a large,Washington, D.C. based govenment with the role of fostering and facilitating conservative principles. A "Constititionalist," advocates a "strict construtionist" interpretation of the Constitution.

Were the Rockefellers "Neo-Cons?" Actually yes. And that is where the confusion sets in.
Trotsky was a Communist. Why would an "evolved Trokskyite" be represented in one of the wealthiest American dynasties?

We must never forget the break in the Communist party. Joseph Stalin, ultimately won. Leon Trotsky lost. Vladimir Lenin, while considering Stalin abrasive and uncouth, was more in principle agreement with him than Trotsky. Stalin held the view that Communism's adoption could only be accomplished through force. Trotsky maintained the belief that it's eventual acceptance was only a matter of time.

The Trotskyite position became homogenized with western capitalism. A happy medium emerged. It began with Roosevelt's New Deal. The New Deal can best be summarized as "a way out(or privileged place) for the extremely wealthy and socialism for the remainder of the population."

Was that conclusion altogether unattractive? To Oligarchs, such as the Rockefellers it made perfect sense. The promise of a social safety net, including socialized medicine, subsidized housing and free education were proven "rabble rousers!" To fund it by increasing the middle class contribution was a sacrifice most of America was ready to consider. True, the positioning was critical. But slick, glib politicians could be found.

Are these "Neo-Cons" actually on common ground with the Democrat party? Not exactly!

We must remember that Stalin hated Trotsky. And, visa versa. That animosity lingers today and is most visible in the general elections. "Neo-Cons" control most of the Republican machinery. The Democrats are more closely aligned to Saul Alinsky, the Frankfort School and Stalinism.

I recall Republican strategist, Karl Rove's acid assessment of Barack Obama. There was unquestionable contempt present when Rove described the President as the "guy at the cocktail party with a Martini in one hand, a cigarette in the other, making a snide comment toward every passer by." To suggest that Rove dislikes Obama would be an understatement.

It's also worth mentioning that the Dallas, Texas former Tea Party president's description of Karl Rove was, "A big government moderate."

Rove was definitely on the bandwagon of Kay Bailey Hutchinson's 2010 Texas Gubernatorial bid. Bailey reminded Texans "what we(as in central government) have done for you in Washington, D.C."

It may have been in that campaign that Senator Paul's distinction of "Neo-Con" versus "Constitutionalist" was most clearly manifested. Bailey's opponent, incumbent and current Texas Governor, Rick Perry emphasized the importance of reducing excess spending and returning power to Austin. He cited Bailey's support for Washington, D.C. based government and the programs that increased it's size and scope. In the end, Perry trounced Hutchinson, administering a black eye to all Texas Republicans who supported her. Including Karl Rove.

Are we suggesting that Rove and Hutchinson are "Neo-Cons?"

This is where things become delicate. Perry, we must remember was a Democrat until 1989. In fact it was Rove who recruited him for the GOP. Perry, like many Southern Democrats(called Boll Weevils at that time) had become disillusioned with the direction of the party. He and other Southerners were echoing Ronald Reagan's proclamation, "I didn't leave the Democrat party, it left me."

Those Republicans who were Republicans in the seventies were ideologically more in tune with Nelson Rockefeller, Gerald Ford, Bob Dole and Howard Baker. Southern Democrats never warmed to any of the four. They were more on George Wallace's page. When the former Alabama Governor talked about States rights and the 10th amendment, he immediately gained their attention.

Wily Jimmy Carter took note. His Southern drawl and avowed loathing of big government lured these "Dixiecrats" into continued allegiance with the Democrats. Four years later, having realized that they had been "conned" by the Georgia Peanut farmer, most embraced Ronald Reagan. They were later heralded as "Reagan Democrats."

It might be noted that the Gerald Ford, Bob Dole, Nelson Rockefeller wing of the Republican party did not initially support Reagan. They were decisively behind his eventual running mate, George H.W. Bush.

Bush, like Ford, Dole and Rockefeller was a long time party man. Reagan was the outsider who, like Perry was a convert. In that 2010 Texas Gubernatorial election, the distinction between the two elements again crystallized.

Are we suggesting that Dole, Ford and George H.W. Bush were "Neo-Cons?"

To call these great Americans "evolved Trotskyites" is a stretch. They all loved their country and were patriots to the utmost extent. To suggest that they were influenced by Keynesian economic theory is a fact. To note that they supported large Washington, D.C. based government is reality, albeit not to the extent of their Democrat adversaries.

In short, there is a stark difference between Republicans! Maybe it's due to the fact that most of today's Republican party is made up of members who would not have been Republicans in 1973, or even 1983. Without question, Reagan Republicans were quite different from Nelson Rockefeller Republicans. Not to mention, Mitt Romney Republicans.

Reagan rolled into office with a promise that he would "reduce the cost of government." He strove for Federalism. Rick Perry echoed that aspiration in his short lived bid for the presidency. When he mentioned "downsizing" Washington, the "Neo-Cons" pounced!

Southerners in comparison to Northerners may find it easier to compromise a safety net for more freedoms. It is in our psyche, perhaps. There is always a deep rooted fear in a government from afar, mandating how we are supposed to live our lives.

Federalism amounts to less power for a central government. The two arguing Marxist factions determined this much 100 years ago. Stalin, Trotsky and Lenin agreed that it was "better to control everything from one central point."

This amounts to an eye opening litmus test. Even honorable leaders with the best of intentions have been known to get it wrong! When we continue to witness the growth of Washington, D.C. based government and ask "why," it becomes plainly evident.

"When both sides are in agreement, the result is generally predictable."

Wednesday, April 3, 2013

Class warfare is a derivative of Marxism. The "pursuit of social justice" cleverly veils the true objective.

We are divided as Americans, reminded of our differences. We attempt to accommodate these differences, in the name of diversity. We are quick to correct any and all who attempt to transcend this notion. In some case, we ridicule and chastise those who rise above this accepted practice. Senator Marco Rubio can testify to that!

Why would any true believer in the United States of America deride a Marco Rubio? Should he not be commended for his rapid rise into Americas governing class? Is he not more representative of America than many who hold ruling positions of power in Washington D.C.? Is it not American tradition to applaud self made inspirations who proved that through hard work and dedication, that the ultimate might be achieved?

In some circles, it is. In others, it is considered a threat. These are the believers in Lenin. These are the disciples of Stalin. They believe that Karl Marx had it right. They want no detractors. Marco Rubio scares them. As long as he exists, their very existence is threatened.

What does Marco Rubio truly represent? In short, he represents the "Perfect Society." In no other current American figure, is the nearly forgotten "Perfect Society"more perfectly manifested.

"Perfect Society" as we remember was a theory that "no matter what your linage, irregardless of your country of origin, the color of your skin, your creed, religious preference, your material resources, you were always one rung higher on the socio-economic ladder than the slave."

This was the true essence of the Antebellum South. Revisionist historians have attempted to bury it. But, it still exists. One of it's fruits is the absence of ethnicity. As we may recall from a previous post, the ethnic groups so prevalent in the north are nearly absent in the south. The reason: "Perfect Society" is a southern thing! But, it could and should be shared with the rest of the country!

Could it be sold to America? It should be! For one simple reason! It is the polar opposite to Marxism. Hence, it is feared by those who want a Communist America. If Perfect Society takes hold in America, Marxism is finished.

But wait! There are no slaves in contemporary America! Right?

Wrong!

Those who have decided to become "career entitlees," are today's slaves. Of course, they aren't referenced as such! For good reason! Without them, the Marxist plot to take America ends!

This is the concept that our people must entertain:

"If you do not draw social security, disability, pension, an income from a regular job, an income from previous investments, have held a job at at any time during the previous past five years, own two acres of land, or have never taken a dime from the government, you are eligible to vote. If not, you aren't!"

Could this idea be sold to America? I think that it could. The first concern, however, would be the myriad of lawsuits that would be certain to accompany such legislation. That's why it would be an imperative to treat it in similar fashion to the "E" amendment that is outlined in my book: "Immune from legal challenge." This is about the future and security of America; not lawyers!

Are there sufficient Americans who would be ready to fight for this standard? I think so! It would begin with a grass roots movement that is introduced in Chapter Seven of "E" is for English. For those who have not read "E," definitely check out "Eagles to the Rescue."

Reform of this nature won't come easily. There will be resistance like never seen. But those resisting are mostly Marxists. Many don't even know that they are Marxists, but they are. In future posts, we will discuss how we will "unmask" each and every one of them.